> the dam doesn't bleed radioactive particles into the atmosphere I would urge you to look at https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ and compa

> the dam doesn't bleed radioactive particles into the atmosphere I would urge you to look at https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ and compare the lines: Living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant for a year (0.09 µSv) Living within 50 miles of a coal power plant for a year (0.3 µSv) https://isnap.nd.edu/assets/255639/radioactivity_lecture_18.pdf https://isnap.nd.edu/assets/255639/radioactivity_lecture_18.... https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/43/035/43035329.pdf https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/... (which concludes with "Thus, Malaysia needs to consider the possible future study of radiological impact from airborne routine discharges of coal-fired power plant.") https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S096980431300273X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09698... - "Detailed studies on naturally occuring radionuclide emissions due to a 2420 MW coal-fired power plant in Malaysia." --- I'm personally much less worried about the radioactive materials from a uranium nuclear power plant than I am from coal or bad decisions on how to dispose of radioactive waste products. We'd likely lower our radioactive footprint by completely switching from coal power to uranium.